Crysis 2 Will Be Kind to Your PC. Plus, a New Trailer

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

 

[vrbtny]

To the elitists getting angry about this. This is minimum for one thing, and remember how the specs for the original were a complete lie? Please stfu....

Dude, you've clearly missed the whole "Crysis" thing.

It's basically a excuse for mass pc gaming elitism....

 

[Waaghpowa]

What!? But it's not Crysis unless it makes your computer explode!

Actually, I'm very much inclined to agree...

I firmly believe that a vast majority of Crysis and Warhead owners played those games precisely because they made their PCs explode.

Lets face it, the gameplay and storyline of the previous Crysis games weren't all that great, but it had a lot going for it in the graphics department.

I bought Warhead without even watching a trailer, 'cus I knew what I'd get. A graphics wankfest.

The same will not be true of Crysis 2, and I'm oh so very glad that we're getting a Demo.

It's especially sad seeing as Crysis was basicly the one and only game series that catered specifically to people who had top-of-the-line gear.

I agree as well, though I liked Crysis, I didn't think it was extraordinary. I did like how it represented the potential of pc games.

 

[Athinira]

Either this is the RECOMMENDED system reqs, or something is wrong, because like several people pointed out, this is beyond what the original required.

With that said, i do believe that this must be the recommended and not the minimum. How, for example, can the minimum req be 512 MB RAM for the Video card, when the PS3/Xbox360 each doesn't even have that available (the 360 has 512 MB of RAM total, but it's shared RAM) and the game is coming out for both of those?

Not that I'm holding my breath, but it IS possible that the PR guy who is responsible for the FaceBook-posts messed up the two.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Was the first any good? I think I am going to pick up 2 for the 360, but wanted to see how people feel about the 1st.

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

 

[Athinira]

Was the first any good? I think I am going to pick up 2 for the 360, but wanted to see how people feel about the 1st.

I replayed it + warhead in the last few days. They're still great games.

- They're action packed
- You can play them any way you want, including tuning the difficulty files to support a more stealth-based style or perhaps a more Rambo-style gameplay. Adds alot of replayability.
- Satisfying shooting/shooter mechanics
- Custom-tuning the graphics engine is actually something i spend HOURS on, trying to see how great a look i can get with as high FPS as possible. It's actually quite addictive trying to push your PC in this game. Since pretty much every graphic setting can be tweaked even beyond the "Very High" settings, even the people with the best graphic setup can make the game look better than very high.

I got both Crysis + Crysis Warhead of the holiday Steam sales for ?5 Can't really complain. Seems like you won't be as lucky though now that christmas is over.

Edit: With that said, i suspect that ultimately this is going to be a game that is the most fun on the PC. I would definitely buy it for PC myself, even if i had consoles as well.

 

[gabe12301]

Yay, my barely-gaming laptop will be able to play it.

 

[KO4U]

Better trailer, still no sale.

 

[Ossian]

What!? But it's not Crysis unless it makes your computer explode!

Edit: And while I'm at it Crytek, where the fuck is my copy of Timesplitters 4 like you promised! -.-

Good riddance to Timesplitters 4, after watching this trailer I actually want to play Crysis 2. When I watch the Multiplayer mode I cringe about how horrible it is.
Oh and who is responsable for that? Not my Crytek, 'tis the timesplitters team.

In this single player trailer I actually saw the Crysis I know in love. Maximum strength ftw! After I heard Cry2 was going the first thing I said I wanted was to be able to kick things in Strength mode, and they delivered!!!!

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

 

[Danpascooch]

Minimum is all nice but I want to know what you need to get it looking PC amazing...

For that you need to hook Skynet up to a planet made entirely of semiconductors

 

[MrTub]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

 

[The Random One]

Man, first Duke Nukem Forever is announced, and now Crysis runs in an average computer. What is happening to gaming's running gags?

I know I'll end up playing this just because it happens on destroyed New York, it's just a matter of whether I'll buy it or rent it. Looking like a rental so far.

 

[DoDoPie]

can my sapphire hd 5770 flex 1gb intel core 2 quad 2.xxghz play it medium or mayb high? either 1680x 1050 or 1240 x 1024. i can play black ops all mxed out no aa 100% af no vsync at 1680 x 1050 max 110fps min 40 fps. pls help im dying for an answer((((

 

[thesaxmaniac]

it's just a couple generations behind.

Which is exactly why I don't think it's that great a card. The 200 series is to nVidia what the 1156 socket is to Intel. Sure it performs great for it's time, but with the price points of newer hardware that outperforms it easily, it is rendered completely obsolete.

So what you are saying is that anything not top-of-the-line is "not a great card". That's ridiculous. That's like saying the Geforce 4 ti wasn't or isn't a good card just because it's old and can't handle new games. It's still a great card that was made for the games of it's generation. Same with the 260.

I think from the 9 series to 200 series or so, nVidia sort of dropped the ball. To me, the 460 GTX is where they redeemed themselves. It represents the amazing bang for buck that the 8800 had back in it's day.

Clearly what you "think" is an opinion, and not a fact. The fact is, is that the series of cards from 9-current has been reviewed to be just as good if not better than AMD's similar offerings, and Nvidia has been the market-owning champ since the Radeon 9800 series. Also, upper-mid range cards typically sell the most and have the most longevity in the market, like the 260.

I'm not comparing them to AMD, I'm comparing them to themselves (compare the 9800 GTX and 8800 GTX, the 9800 reads like an overclocked 8800). You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to spouting facts. I never said you need to have a top of the line card. I just said that I don't think the 200 is that great given the price points of newer cards (i.e. the 460 GTX and 560 GTX) which offer great value for money. You don't need to be so defensive.

If you think the 260 is great, good for you, I just don't think it is.

Obviously if you have the ability to see the future, you could easily tell that the 460 GTX and the 560 GTX are coming out and are going to be better deals compared to the 260. But back in 200-time, those cards didn't exist and a 260 was considered a GREAT deal by most publications. How can you compare a newer generation to an older one? OBVIOUSLY it's going to be a better deal and no one in their right mind would buy a 200-series card today. DUH. But saying that Nvidia "dropped the ball" with their 9-200 series is just an unfair opinion, not taking into account the fact that professional hardware reviewers completely disagreed when those cards debuted.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I DISAGREE with you and I also disagree with professional hardware reviewers if their opinion reflects yours. I do not think that the 260 is a GREAT card. I didn't say it was a terrible bit of tech, I think it's average but when you're talking about fairly high spec games, average doesn't cut it.

All I'm saying here is to put yourself in the buyer's mindset in the time when the top-of-the-line cards were the 200 series. A 260 was much cheaper than a 280, and most reviewer's considered it an excellent deal for the tech you were getting. Compared to today's cards, yes, it is vastly inferior, but at the time, a 260 was an awesome deal, and it could run every game on high with some or full aa. Same with my 275: great deal at the time, run on max with no or little aa. Calling my card or this guy's 260 a "not that great card" is just not cool, because when we bought these cards, they were awesome deals, and now-a-days they may not be top of the line, but they are still considered "great" cards that can play (I say from personal experience) most, if not all, games on maximum settings with at least a little bit of aa. I'm confident both cards can also play Crysis 2 on max settings with no aa, and they are nowhere near today's top-of-the-line.

No it can't play Crysis 2 on max setting since your cards do not support DX11 and therefor you cannot play it on the highest settings.

Ok, since you side-stepped the real argument I guess I'll respond to this. DX11 is a joke. So is dx10. DX10 effects could be simply modified into the config to work in DX9. Maybe this isn't true with DX11, but even if it isn't, name 10 games that will take advantage of the new effects, and name 10 big-budget pc games that are ported from consoles that will take advantage of it. 1 and 0. Sorry, but advances in PC hardware don't equal advances in console hardware, and the PC has been degraded to just receiving ports of good console games. Also, DX11 "support" is often confused with DX11 "features" which is an entirely different matter. I doubt many DX11 "features" will be present in Crysis 2. Also, in order to keep the platform's visual quality at least mostly consistent, I doubt Crysis 2 will feature any of these "features". Of course, this is all speculation as is anything that states that a 260 won't be able to run Crysis 2 at max.

 

[MrTub]

can my sapphire hd 5770 flex 1gb intel core 2 quad 2.xxghz play it medium or mayb high? either 1680x 1050 or 1240 x 1024. i can play black ops all mxed out no aa 100% af no vsync at 1680 x 1050 max 110fps min 40 fps. pls help im dying for an answer((((

It's quite impossible to say at this moment but I would suggest that you wait for the PC demo and see then what settings you can use, but Im pretty sure you should be able to play it on medium.